Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
30Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Apple Denied Motion for Permanent Injunction

Apple Denied Motion for Permanent Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 89,182 |Likes:
Published by Mikey Campbell

More info:

Published by: Mikey Campbell on Dec 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE, INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., AKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company,Defendants.)))))))))))))))Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION FORPERMANENT INJUNCTIONPlaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed this action against Defendants Samsung ElectronicsCo., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(collectively “Samsung”) on April 15, 2011, alleging infringement of several Apple patents anddilution of Apple’s trade dress. On August 21, 2012, a jury returned a verdict that 26 Samsungproducts infringed Apple’s patents or diluted Apple’s trade dress. Apple now brings this motionfor a permanent injunction seeking to enjoin Samsung “from infringing, contributing to theinfringement, or inducing the infringement of any of Apple’s U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, U.S.Patent No. 7,844,915, U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163, U.S. Design Patent No. 604,305, U.S. DesignPatent No. 593,087, and U.S. Design Patent No. 618,677, including by making, using, offering to
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2197 Filed12/17/12 Page1 of 23
 
 2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
sell, selling within the United States, or importing into the United States any of the InfringingProducts or any other product not more than colorably different from an Infringing Product as to afeature or design found to infringe.” Proposed Order Granting Apple’s Motion for a PreliminaryInjunction and Damages Enhancement, ECF No. 2133. Apple also seeks to enjoin Samsung fromdiluting Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress and Apple’s unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress,including by selling or offering to sell in the United States any of six products the jury found todilute Apple’s trade dresses.
1
 
 Id.
After hearing oral argument on the matter and reviewing thebriefing by the parties, the evidence offered in support of the briefing, and the relevant law, theCourt DENIES Apple’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction.The Patent Act provides that in cases of patent infringement a court “may grant injunctionsin accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent,on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C.§ 283. Though injunctions were once issued in patent cases as a matter of course, the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that “broadclassifications” and “categorical rule[s]” were inappropriate in analyzing whether to grant apermanent injunction.
eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
, 547 U.S. 388, 393 (2006). Instead, apatentee seeking a permanent injunction must make a four-part showing:(1) That it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, suchas monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that,considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedyin equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by apermanent injunction.
 Id.
at 391. In considering Apple’s motion, the Court will consider each of these four factorsin turn, and will then consider whether, on balance, the principles of equity support theissuance of a permanent injunction in this case.
A.
 
Irreparable Harm
Historically, once a plaintiff in a patent case succeeded on the merits or established alikelihood of success, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction was presumed. As the
1
In the same motion, Apple also requested an enhancement of $535 million to the jury’s damagesaward under both the Patent Act and the Lanham act. Because this request is intertwined with theother damages issues in this case, the Court will address Apple’s enhancement request in a separateOrder.
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2197 Filed12/17/12 Page2 of 23
 
 3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
Federal Circuit has recently made clear, however, there is no longer any presumption of irreparableharm, even if a patentee is able to prove that a patent is valid and infringed.
 Robert Bosch LLC v.Pylon Manufacturing Corp.
, 659 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2011). While the presumption of irreparable harm no longer applies, the Federal Circuit noted that “it does not follow that courtsshould entirely ignore the fundamental nature of patents as property rights granting the owner theright to exclude.”
 Id 
. Thus, the patentee’s right to exclude must be considered by a district court indetermining whether an injunction is an appropriate remedy, but does not alone satisfy theirreparable harm requirement.Further, a showing that the patentee has suffered harm is insufficient. Rather, “to satisfythe irreparable harm factor in a patent infringement suit, a patentee must establish both of thefollowing requirements: 1) that absent an injunction, it will suffer irreparable harm, and 2) that asufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.”
 Apple, Inc.v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
, 695 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Apple II”).
2
This testrequires a showing that consumers buy the infringing product “because it is equipped with theapparatus claimed in the . . . patent,” and not merely because it includes a feature of the typecovered by the patent.
 Id.
at 1376.This Court has already performed significant irreparable harm analysis in this case.Specifically, in considering Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction, this Court found, and theFederal Circuit agreed, that Apple had not demonstrated irreparable harm from the likelyinfringement of the D’677 or D’087 patents.
See
ECF No. 452 at 27-38;
 Apple I,
678 F.3d at 1324-26. The Court considered Apple’s arguments that it had suffered irreparable harm in the form of erosion of design distinctiveness and irreversible loss of market share and loss of customers. TheCourt concluded that Apple had not explained how erosion of design distinctiveness actuallycaused any irreparable harm, and rejected Apple’s theory that infringement diminished the value of 
2
The Federal Circuit’s
 Apple II 
opinion addresses a preliminary injunction. However, theirreparable harm requirement applies to both preliminary and permanent injunctions, and there isnothing in the
 Apple II 
opinion suggesting that its discussion of irreparable harm should be limitedto the preliminary injunction context. Indeed, Courts regularly cite cases from the two contextsinterchangeably.
See, e.g.
,
 Apple v. Samsung Electronics Co.
, 678 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir.2012) (“Apple I”) (preliminary injunction opinion citing
Voda v. Codis Corp.
, 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (permanent injunction opinion)).
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2197 Filed12/17/12 Page3 of 23

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->